Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T22:25:29.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Description of Territorial Behavior and a Quantitative Study of its Function in Males of Hetaerina americana (Fabricius) (Odonata: Agriidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Clifford Johnson
Clifford Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The present work was predominantly stimulated by Moore (1953, 1957) in his studies on the functions of dragonfly territoriality. The objective of this study has been to describe the territorial behavior of Hetaerina americana males and to obtain quantitative information on its function by the capture mark recapture method. Population analyses by marking and recapturing have made possible the calculation of many factors of ecological importance. Flying insects have received especial attention from Dowdeswell, Fisher, and Ford (1940) and Fisher and Ford (1947) for the Lepidoptera and from Jackson (1948) for the tsetse-fly. Borror (1934) was among the first to utilize marking methods for studies on the Odonata. Several investigators have since used such methods for these insects. Corbet (1952) has shown the Odonata to be quite suitable for quantitative study by these methods. Observations on territoriality were made from March to August, 1960, on the San Marcos River, San Marcos, Texas, the San Marcos River, Palmetto State Park, Texas, the San Gabriel River, Georgetown, Texas, and on the Colorado River, 15 miles west of Austin, Texas. The population study was also carried on at the latter habitat in the summer of 1960 from July 4 to August 2 in which 340 individuals were marked and a total of 396 recaptures were recovered.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 94 , Issue 2 , February 1962 , pp. 178 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baldus, K. 1926. Experimentelle Untersuchungen uber die Enterfernungslokalisation der Libellen, (Aeschna cyanea). Zeit. vgl. Physiol. 3: 475–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borror, D. J. 1934. Ecological studies of Argia moesta Hagen (Odonata: Coenagrionidae) by means of marking. Ohio J. Sci. 34: 97–108.Google Scholar
Borror, D. J. 1948. Analysis of repeat records of banded white-throat sparrows. Ecological Monographs 18: 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchholtz, C. 1951. Untersuchungen an der Libellen-Gattung Calopteryx Leach unter besonder Berucksichtigung ethologischer Fragen. Zeit. Tierpsych. 8: 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchholtz, C. 1955. Eine vergleichende Ethologie der orientalischen Calopterygiden (Odonata) als Beitrag zu ihrer systematischen Deutung. Zeit. Tierpsych. 12: 364–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbet, P. S. 1952. An adult population study of Pyrrhosoma nymphula (Sulzer): (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). J. Animal Ecology 21: 206 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbet, P. S. 1956. Environmental factors influencing the induction and termination of diapause in the Emperor Dragonfly, Anax imperator Leach (Odonata: Aeshinidae). J. Exp. Biol. 33: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowdeswell, W. H.Fisher, R. A., and Ford, E. B., 1940. The quantitative study of populations in the Lepidoptera. I. Polyommatus icarus Rott. Ann. Eugen., Lond. 10: 123–136.Google Scholar
Dowdeswell, W. H. 1959. Practical Animal Ecology. Methuen and Co. Ltd., London pp. 316.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. and Ford, E. B.. 1947. The spread of a gene in natural conditions in a colony of the moth Panaxia dominula L. Heredity 1: 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, E. B. 1951. The experimental study of evolution. Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science 33: 143–154.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. H. N. 1948. The analysis of a tsetse-fly population. III. Ann. Eugen. 14: 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, M. E. 1955. Studies on territorialism and sexual selection in dragonflies. Ecology 36: 566–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. 1961. Breeding behavior and oviposition in Hetaerina americana (Fabricius) and H. titia (Drury) (Odonata: Agriidae). Can. Entomologist 93: 260–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, J. 1958. The estimation of numbers of mobile insects from low-incidence recapture data. Trans. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. 110: 363–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, N. W. 1953. Population density in adult dragonflies (Odonata: Anisoptera). J. Animal Ecology 22: 344–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, N. W. 1957. Territory in dragonflies and birds. Bird Study 4: 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, G. K. 1939. Symposium on the individual vs. the species. IV. The role of dominance in the life of birds. Auk 56: 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, H. 1948. Die Bindung der Hochmoorlibelle Leucorrhinia dubia Vand. an ihr Biotop. Zool. Jahrb. Syst. 78: 65–96.Google Scholar
Wesenberg-Lund, C. 1913–1914. Odonaten-Studien. Rev. Hydrobiol. (Leipzig). 6: 155–228, 373–422.Google Scholar
Williamson, E. B. 1923. Notes on the habitats of some tropical species of Hetaerina. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 130: 1–46.Google Scholar
Zahner, R. 1960. Uber die Bindung der Mitteleuropaischen Calopteryx-Arten (Odonata, Zygoptera) an der Lebensraum des Stromenden Wassers. 2. Der Anteil der Imagines an der Biotopbindung. Intern. Revuue d. ges. Hydrobiol. 45: 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar